(C) News

As a user of social media--Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and others--you have rights and responsibilities you may not know about. You may also be losing some of your rights. There are 2 imporant querstions to ask yourself:

• Who owns the right to use my content on social media?
• Whose content am I using on social medai, and am I using it legally?

Copyright and licensing are key players invovled  in answering these questions. In this post, we'll address the first question

When you create a written work, musical piece, drawing, or any original creative work, generally speaking, and with some exceptions, you have the right to say if, how, how much, and how often someone uses part or all of if.

But that's not necessarily the case with social media. Social media platforms are out there ultimately not to connect people socially but to make a profit. Therefore, as lawyer and msucian Adam Weissman puts it, they're "not always taking your best interests into account."  Do you remember agreeing to those Terms of Use in the social media platforms? These Terms of Use typically  include accepting a license agreement that grants the platform the license, or right, to use your created content.

You can read more about this and some copyright tips for posting on social media in Weisman's article, Who Owns Your Social Media Content?

And check back here for another post on copyright in the media that will address the second question: Whose content are you using, and are you using it legally?

Copyrights, trademarks, and patents are all part of protecting intellectual property rights. So too are industrial designs and trade secrets, But did you know that they are also important for fostering innovation of new designs, music, books, and anything that we as human beings can create? And that they foster economic growth as well?

So let's celebrate this year's World Intellectual Property Day, April 26. Here are a few resources that will give you some more information, as well as a list of intellectual property (IP) "changemakers."

• Brief information on the various types of property rights
• Visit the 2024 Gallery of IP Changemakers from around the world 

For more information, visit the site of the World Intellectual Property Organization.

There has been a lot of news and dicsussion about artifical intellgence (AI). The Economist in a recent article predicts that "Generative artifical intellgience (AI) will transform the workplace," eventually affecting 40% of jobs (March 2, 2024), but issues of copyright may impact this.

Three issues have arisen in the discussion of copyright and AI, which can be listed in the following three questions::

• Is there copyright protection for generative AI outputs?
• Do works copied to train AI technology infringe on copyritht?
• Can works generated by AI infringe upon the copyright of works that were used to generate the outputs?

These questions are very pertinent to what is currently happening. The U.S. Copyright Office is already receiving and examining applications to claim copyright for AI-generated material, with AI as the author or as co-author. Courts are hearing lawsuits in all three of these areas. 

For a timelyy and brief overview of trends in the U.S. court system, US Law Week has a pertinent article, "Copyright Liability for Generative AI Pivots on Fair Use Doctrine." For more information and an overview of varying opinons on the matter, the Congressional Research Service has recently published the report, "Generative Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law."

If you would like to read more of the discussion, the Copyright Office collected public feedback near the end of last year. Those comments are available at Regulations:  Artificial Intelligence and Copyright. 

Are you using images created by someone else? Make sure they aren't copyrighted and that you have permission to use them. Since November 2023, at least 7 claims have been filed to the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) for monetary compensattion for using images without permission. And of the 7 claims I reviewed that involved images, all the claimants won. 

One claimant used reverse image tracking technology to find copies of his photos being used online  (Hursey v. Lavaca, Docket no. 22-CCB-0056, 2023) The claimant in this case was awarded $3,000 in statutory damges for the misuse of one photograph. The same claimant filed with the CCB against a different respondent in the same month and again was awarded $3,000 for the copying and pasting of one of his photographs without permission onto a web site (Hursey v. Quinney, Docket no. 22-CCB-0163, 2023).

So be careful if using others' images! Need to use an image and want to make sure it isn't copyrighted? Here are a few sites to find images you can freely use--but be careful even here, because some also provide copyrighted stock images (clearly marked) that require royalties/licensing fees and permission to use:

• FreeDigitalPhotos.net
• Pexels
• Free Clip Art Library
• Pixabay
• Unsplash
• Creative Commons - these can be used according to individual specifications and limitations, which often include citing the source; be sure to read the licensing policy for each one

It is good practice in any case to cite your source even when it can be freely used. You are thereby giving credit where credit is due. For help citing your sources, visit our Quick Reference portal.  Just remember, even if you cite the source, if you copy and paste an image make sure you first have permission to use someone else's work.

Enjoy the resources above as good starting points for finding easy-to-use images!.

With the new year, many 1925 creative works--books, songs, movies, and other media--have now entered the Public Domain! These are specifically works that were published or registered in 1925. This was a great year for some famous works! You can read all about it from the Library of Congress, the Internet Archives, and NPR..These works include The Great Gatsby and the silent film Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ (not the two Ben Hur versions since then) and some music by Duke Ellington..

A great resource for some of these public domain books in ebook format is Project Gutenberg. LibriVox is a source of free public domain audio books. YouTube can be a source for movies in the public domain. The Internet Archive has recorded aufio files (in addition to books) in the public domain.  Interested? Take a look or listen!. 

AI has been making the news lately, and copyright issues with AI also abound. This year the Copyright Office has iniated a study into copyright and AI and solicited comments from the public. Those comments will be posted in the next several days, with options to reply to those comments in November. This includes works generated by AI (hence the phrase ?generative AI") and works used in AI training. Details on the Copyright Office's initiative can be found here.

AI use of music is particularly complex, and Forbes published an article on this earlier this year (read the Forbes artticle here).

Congress is also looking into this and published in September 2023 an article on generative AI and copyright law. This includes both whether works by generative AI may be copyrighted and possible infringements by generative AI of copyright in other works.

Look for updates in this blog as they become available.

We now have seen many cases come to the Small Claims Board since June 2022, when the Board became active under the new Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act (CASE Act).

Interested in learning what claims are being made? Visit the First 100 Cases at the Copyright Claims Board from Plagiarism Today.

It is also interesting to note that as of today, 822 libraries have opted out of this process.

Interested in knowing who has opted out? Visit the Libraries and Archives Opt-Out List from the Copyright Office.

With the new year  many 1926 creative works have now entered the Public Domain! These are specifically works that were published or registered in 1926. Wondering what creative works were published in 1926? Here's a list of the most popular books from 1926 according to Goodreads.

Sound recordings are a bit different, but they, too, are making a splash in the public domain this year. The Music Modernization Act is now active this year, making sound recordings from 1922 and earlier available in the public domain. You can view more details here.

And to put this in historical context, find out what happened in 1926.

The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act passed in June 2020 and has created a Copyright Claims Board (CCB), which is scheduled to begin to operate by the end of 2021. It brings new possibilities for lawsuits concerning alleged copyright infringement. It was created to address the expenses encountered in bringing copyright action into a federal court and to make it easier for infringement lawsuits. 

There is now a Copyright Claims Board from the  U.S. Copyright Office who will hear proceedings of small copyright claims; I say "proceedings" rather than "cases" because technically the CCB is not a court within the judiciary branch. Yet their decisions are typically final and they can award a claimant money, to be paid by the responder (defendant) of up to $30,000 ("small claims").

There are pros and cons for copyright holders and for libraries, educational institutions, and institution employees. One pro is that the CASE Act limits total damages that can be awarded to up to $30,000. However, that does not include legal fees; legal fees are not awarded in a CCB hearing. And there have been concerns raised by those in higher education and libraries.

For more information and current opinions:

• Overview of the CASE Act from the U.S. Copyright Office
• Overview of the CASE Act from Copyright Alliance 
• Pros & cons for the copyright holder from one law firm here
• American Association of Law Libraries April 2021 Letter to the Copyright Office
• Small Claims Procedures for Library and Archives Opt-Outs
• Can Fair Use Survive the CASE Act?

The Copyright Office is reviewing feedback on their proposals for CCB procedures at the time of this post. Currently the procedures indicate that libraries can opt out of the entire system up front once for all so that they don't have to be on the lookout for notices of possible copyright infringement from the Copyright Office or Copyright Claims Board (exact procedure not yet established at the time of this post). However, library employees, university employees, and the parent institution do not have this option; they must be watchful for Copyright Office/CCB copyright infringement notices and make the decision whether to be a defendant against infringement claims in the CCB proceedings or opt out as each individual infringement claim is made. If they ignore the notice they receive, they will automatically be required to appear before the CCB and defend their actions against the infringement claimant. 

So be watchful! The Copyright Office of CCB will serve notice if someone files against an institution or names individuals in their filing. The institution and/or the individuals will need to respond every time they are served notice and decide in each instance whether to opt out or appear before the CCB. If you choose to opt out, then the alleged infringement claimant will then choose whether to take the organization/individual(s) to court in the U.S. court system, with its checks and balances, which aren't necessarily part of the CCB.

Want to stay on top of important copyright current trends and issues? Check out these blogs:

• Bringam Young University (BYU) Copyright Blog
• Copyright Clearance Center's Blog
• Kluwer Copyright Blog (a publisher's perspective)
• Nova Southeastern University (Florida) Copyright Blog
• U.S. Copyright Office's Blog
• The IP Blog from Weintraub Tobin's Intellectual Property Group of Litigators
• Top 60 Copyright Blogs on Feedspot